Certiorari granted by the United States Supreme Court on April 4, 2011
Oral arguments scheduled for October 12, 2011

Outline:

• The Parties
• FantasyCast
• The Questions Presented
• Case Background
• The Law
• Precedents
• Justice Voting History
• The Arguments
• Oral Arguments
• The Court’s Opinion
• Blog Topics
• Resources

The Parties

Petitioner: Albert Florence

v.

Board of Freeholders of Burlington County, NJ

(jump to the top of the page)

FantasyCast

(jump to the top of the page)

The Questions Presented

(jump to the top of the page)

Case Background

Albert Florence

On March 3, 2005, Albert Florence was driving with his family through Burlington County, New Jersey when he was pulled over by a New Jersey State Trooper. The Trooper notified Mr. Florence that he was being stopped due to an outstanding warrant for his arrest that had been issued because he allegedly failed to pay a routine fine. Mr. Florence presented documents showing that he had already paid the fine, but, nonetheless, the officer arrested him, placed him in a police car, and drove him to the local jail.

When Mr. Florence arrived at the jail, he was subject to a strip search and visual body-cavity search conducted on all inmates. Following the search, he was asked to shower in the presence of a correctional officer. Six days later, he was transported to a local correctional facility where he was subjected to a strip search and visual body-cavity search simultaneously with four other inmates. As Mr. Florence would later discover, the strip search he experienced was nothing out of the ordinary; the correctional facility had a blanket policy of subjecting all incoming male residents to these searches. The following day, he was released from custody and all charges against him were dismissed.

Florence with his lawyer

At the District Court

Opinion of the Court of Appeals

(jump to the top of the page)

The Law

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

(jump to the top of the page)

Relevant Precedents

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979)

In Bell v. Wolfish, the Supreme Court upheld a prison policy of strip searching all inmates following supervised visits with guests from outside the prison. The Court laid out a complex balancing test, but concluded that “reasonable individualized suspicion” was not necessary to make a prison strip search policy constitutional.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)

In Hiibel, the Supreme Court upheld a state law that allowed a police officer to ask an individual to identify himself or herself if there were suspicious circumstances that lead the police officer to believe that the individual may have committed a crime. In other words, if a police officer is suspicious that a person committed a crime, the person is required to identify himself or herself. Although the police typically cannot question an individual arbitrarily, the presence of suspicious circumstances justified the minor intrusion.

Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. ___ (2009)

In Redding, the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional for school officials to strip search Savana Redding, a 13-year old student who was suspected of hiding, at worst, prescription-strength ibuprofen. A school officer asked the middle school student to partially remove her undergarments after receiving an uncorroborated tip from another student.

Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. ___ (2009)

In Fisher, the Supreme Court held that police officers had probable cause to search a home after seeing blood on the hood of a car and newly broken window on the building. The court noted that although police officers typically cannot enter a home without a warrant, they were not required to ignore even the most obvious imminent violence.

Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. ___ (2011)

In Brown v. Plata, the Supreme Court upheld a court order requiring that California release nearly 30,000 inmates within two years due to dangerous overcrowding in its prisons. The Court noted that, although a massive release may increase the number of criminals who harm society, but it was the only way to meet the constitutional requirements of safety in California prisons. The Court considered the inherently dangerous and sometimes unhealthy nature of prison life, but held that prisoners still retain significant rights under the Constitution.

Powell v. Barrett, 541 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2008) (en banc)

In Powell, sitting in a 12-member en banc panel, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a blanket strip search policy nearly identical to the one in Florence was constitutional. The Court of Appeals relied heavily upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Bell to find that the search in question was no more intrusive or unreasonable in the context than the one that was upheld twenty-nine years earlier. The court also noted that a reasonable individualized suspicion was not required if a prison could show that there was a legitimate need for a blanket policy.

Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc)

In Brown v. Plata, the Supreme Court upheld a court order requiring that California release nearly 30,000 inmates within two years due to dangerous overcrowding in its prisons. The Court noted that, although a massive release may increase the number of criminals who harm society, but it was the only way to meet the constitutional requirements of safety in California prisons. The Court considered the inherently dangerous and sometimes unhealthy nature of prison life, but held that prisoners still retain significant rights under the Constitution.

(jump to the top of the page)

Justice Voting History

This chart could help with predicting the outcome of the case and how the Justices will vote. But be
careful: a lot will depend on the facts of this case and not how someone has voted in the past. [Note: the Justices are listed in order of seniority with the Chief Justice first.]

(jump to the top of the page)

The Arguments

Florence (Petitioner)

Burlington County, New Jersey (Respondent)

(jump to the top of the page)

Oral Arguments

Coming soon.

The Court’s Opinion

Coming soon.

(jump to the top of the page)

Blog Topics

Write the Opinion – Florence v. Board of Freeholders Badge (200 Points)

Pretend you are the Justices of the Supreme Court. Vote as a class how this case should be decided, and write an opinion discussing how this case should be resolved. If your classmates do not all agree, write concurring and dissenting opinions to explore all of your different understandings of the case. Each opinion should be at least 250 words, and reference the text of the Fourth Amendment, at least three of the cases listed in the Relevant Precedents section.

Friend of the Court - Amicus Brief  Badge (150 points)

The Cost of Safety - Criminal Justice Badge (50 points)

Administrative Concerns - Justice Badge (50 points)

Medical Professionals - Patient Care Badge (50 points)

(jump to the top of the page)

Additional Resources

• Full opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Docket information at the Supreme Court:  This page will be updated as more briefs are filed.

(jump to the top of the page)